On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 10:32 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 10:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > >> > * Circles, Boxes and other geometric datatypes defined > >> > "overlaps" to include touching shapes. So > >> > SELECT circle '((0,0), 1)' && circle '((2,0),1)'; > >> > is true, which is fairly strange and makes those datatypes very > >> > counter intuitive. Considering they are instructional aids, > >> > this is bad. > >> > >> You're approximately twenty years too late to propose changing > >> that, even if it were clearly a good idea which I doubt. > > > > Possibly. We should at least document that. > > Basically, what you feel is missing is documentation that if two > shapes share one or more points they are considered to overlap; > there is no requirement that they share an area?
Yes, for most people touching != overlap. So it just looks like a bug. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
